Ravi Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. The plaintiff, as per the amended plaint dated 14th October, 2019, has sued the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and the Director, Directorate of Health Services, Delhi Administration, for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the use and occupation of the plaintiff of and from dispossessing the plaintiff from, the plot of land measuring 1000 sq. yds. bearing No. A-2, out of Field Nos.401 to 405, 407 to 414, 415/2, village Siraspur, in the colony known as Indra Enclave, Block- A, Delhi.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that, (i) the plaintiff, since prior to 1980, is engaged in the business of giving on hire, earthmoving equipment for agriculture and development, in various parts of India and is carrying on the said business either in his own name or in the name of M/s Madhav Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd.; (ii) for the said business, the plaintiff is required to store / park heavy earthmoving 2020:DHC:272 machineries such as bulldozers, excavators, dumpers etc.; the said machines are given on hire to various contractors to work at site and are returned to the plaintiff after completion of the work at site; (iii) to meet the requirement for storage / parking of the said heavy machines and also for other purposes, the plaintiff purchased the plot of land aforesaid vide Agreement to Sell dated 31st October, 1981, for a total sale consideration of Rs.25,000/-; registered payment receipt and registered Will etc. from the erstwhile registered owner of the land viz. Mohan Lal Shelly were obtained; (iv) the plaintiff, besides parking his machinery and equipment on the said land, has since the year 1981-82, been also growing crops thereon and the name of the plaintiff is shown in the Khasra Girdawari for the year 1982-83; (v) the plaintiff has constructed a hutment / structure on the said land, where staff / employees of the plaintiff reside; the said hutment has been in existence for the last more than 35 years; (vi) the plaintiff has been in continuous and uninterrupted use and occupation of the property since the date of its purchase in the year 1981, till date; (vii) in or around 1987-88, the defendants for the first time started claiming leasehold rights on a larger plot of land, including the plot aforesaid and started representing that a hospital was required to be constructed on the said larger plot and from time to time started calling upon the plaintiff to remove his machines and equipment therefrom; (viii) the plaintiff, in or about 1987-88 initiated legal action by filing a writ petition challenging the claim of the defendants of having acquired leasehold rights with respect to the larger piece of land or the subject land and seeking to protect his valuable rights and possession thereof; however the said writ petition was dismissed on 24th May, 1988; (ix) the defendants, vide letter dated 8th March, 1989 admitted the possession of the plaintiff of the subject land but claimed the plaintiff to be a trespasser and called upon the plaintiff to remove the machinery; (x) however, no action as threatened, of dispossession of the plaintiff was taken thereafter and the plaintiff till date continues in possession; (xi) however in August, 2019, the defendants again started threatening the plaintiff with forcible dispossession; (xii) there has been no effort whatsoever on the part of the defendants to construct a hospital on the subject land and the long delay leads the plaintiff to infer that there is no plan of construction of hospital on the subject land; and, (xiii) the officials of the defendants last came to the subject property on 4th September, 2019 and threatened the plaintiff with forcible dispossession.

3. The suit, originally filed only against Director, Directorate of Health Services, Delhi Administration, came up first before this Court on 24th September, 2019 when it was enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff, how the suit could lie against an office, as the office of the Director, Directorate of Health Services, Delhi Administration was. Attention of the counsel for the plaintiff was also drawn to Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 introduced by amendment thereof of the year 2018, which bars grant of any injunction in a suit involving a contract relating to an infrastructure project specified in the Schedule, where granting of injunction would cause impediment or delay in progress of completion of such infrastructure project and to Hari Ram Nagar Vs. DDA 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9747 extending the application of Section 20A to a suit pertaining to infrastructure project, even if not involving a contract and also holding a hospital to be covered under the definition of infrastructure project as it is particularly specified in the Schedule to the Act. Referring to Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. United Industrial Bank Ltd. (1983) 4 SCC 625 it was further enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff, that if the sole relief of permanent injunction as sought could not be granted, how could interim injunction be granted.

4. It was also enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff on 24th September, 2019, whether not in law there is a presumption of possession of open land vesting in the title holder thereof. Attention of the counsel for the plaintiff in this respect was invited to Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 Savyasachi K. Sahai Vs. Union of India 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8818 Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi ILR (2012) 3 Del 247 Pankaj Bajaj Vs. Meenakshi Sharma 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2303 SSP Buildcom P.Ltd. Vs. MCD 173 (2010) DLT 354 Ishmali Devi Vs. DDA 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2550 Navalram Laxmidas Devmurari Vs. Vijayaben Jayvantbai Chavda AIR 1998 Guj. 17 and Murli Devi Vs. NCT of Delhi MANU/DE/3152/2018.

5. As far as the claim of the plaintiff in the plaint of Agreement to Sell in his favour of the land is concerned, attention of the counsel for the plaintiff on 24th September, 2019 was invited to Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 7 SCC 363 and (2012) 1 SCC 656, holding the same to be not conferring title.

6. It was yet further enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff on 24th September, 2019, as to how in the face of dismissal on 24th May, 1988 of Writ Petition No.292/1988 earlier filed by the plaintiff for the same relief, the suit was maintainable.

7. On request of the counsel for the plaintiff on 24th September, 2019, the proceedings were adjourned. The plaintiff thereafter applied for amendment of the plaint and for impleadment of the GNCTD and which was permitted and the amended plaint as detailed above taken on record.

8. Though with the filing of the amended plaint, the objection raised on 24th September, 2019 of the suit against the Director, Directorate of Health Services, Delhi Administration being not maintainable in law stands addressed but the other queries made from the counsel for the plaintiff on 24th September, 2019 remain.

9. The counsel for the plaintiff has argued, that (i) though the defendant no.2 in letter dated 8th March, 1989 represented that a hospital was to be constructed on the subject land but no construction for the last thirty years has been commenced and since no project is underway, the question of causing impediment thereto does not arise;

(ii) Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act is thus not attracted; (iii) there is no notification of acquisition of the subject land by the defendants and for this reason also, the land cannot be required by the defendants for construction of a hospital and there is no bar to the grant of relief of permanent injunction and interim injunction; (iv) the plaintiff has along with the plaint filed a copy of the registered sale deed dated 6th March, 1972 in favour of the earlier owner of the land, as also the Agreement to Sell, registered receipt and registered Will executed by the earlier owner of the land in favour of the plaintiff; the plaintiff has also filed Khasra Girdawari showing the name of the plaintiff with respect to the subject land; (v) the possession of the plaintiff is admitted by the defendants also vide letter dated 8th March, 1989 supra and the documents filed with the suit show settled possession of the plaintiff of the subject land for the last more than 38 years; (vi) the suit being for an injunction simpliciter, Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. supra is not applicable; (vii) the land is not entirely vacant, a hutment exists thereon as shown in the photographs filed with the petition; and, (viii) the order of dismissal of the writ petition earlier filed by the plaintiff does not bar the present suit as the cause of action for the present suit has accrued in August-September, 2019; dismissal of writ petition challenging vesting of the suit property in Gaon Sabha and creation of lease in favour of defendant no.2 has no bearing on the merits of the present suit for injunction.

10. On 24th September, 2019, direction was also issued to the Court Master to inform the Standing Counsel, Civil of GNCTD of the present matter. The counsel for the defendants appeared on 11th October, 2019, 9th December, 2019 and appears today as well and states that the building plans for construction of a hospital over the subject land have been submitted to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for sanction.

11. Before proceeding further, I must record that the counsel for the plaintiff, during the hearing has also referred to Article 112 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, though no mention has been made of the same in the short note of submissions handed over in the Court and tagged to Part-I file.

12. The said Article prescribes limitation of 30 years for any suit by or on behalf of Central Government or any State Government and the counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the limitation available to the defendants for instituting a suit against the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the subject land has also expired. Further, it is contended that Section 27 titled “Extinguishment of Right to Property” of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that at the determination of the period limited by the said Act to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, the right of such person to such property shall stand extinguished.

13. The plaintiff however in the plaint, has not set up title to the subject land by way of prescription or adverse possession and on the contrary has set up a case of lawful title as an agreement purchaser in possession in part performance of the Agreement to Sell. Attention of the counsel for the plaintiff is invited to plethora of judgments particularly in Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Prakash (1995) 4 SCC 496, Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil Vs. Balwant (1995) 2 SCC 543, Mohan Lal Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639, Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India (2004) 10 SCC 779, T. Anyanappa Vs. Somalingappa (2006) 7 SCC 570, P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy Vs. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59, L.N. Aswathama Vs. P. Prakash (2009) 13 SCC 229 and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. Goundla Venkaiah (2010) 2 SCC 461, holding that the plea of lawful title is antithetical to the plea of adverse possession and the two cannot coexist. The plaintiff having approached this Court with the plea of lawful title as an agreement purchaser in possession of the property in part performance of the Agreement to Sell, cannot urge a plea of adverse possession.

14. No further argument in this respect has been made by the counsel for the plaintiff.